IMPORTANT POINT
Justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is also justice circumvented, justice mocked and system of justice undermined.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—There was a delay of 26 days in filing this appeal, which was condoned vide order passed by our predecessor Bench on 05.05.2011. The facts germane to the present case are these. Hi-Life Developers Pvt. Ltd. –OP-1, Mr. Dhiraj P. Shah-OP-2, Mr. Chaitanya N Parekh- OP-3, Mr. Chirag V Shah-OP-4, Mr. Vinayak C. Shah –OP-5, issued a brochure in the year 2001 with the Scheme of construction of farm house measuring half Acre agriculture land and construction of 1250 sq.ft. in Village Ovale, District Thane. Complainants Dr.K.D. Suchak and Mrs. Geeta K. Suchak booked one half Acre farm house by paying Rs.4,50,000/- by cheques and Rs.50,000/- in cash. OP-3 issued an allotment letter dated 23.08.1991. The total consideration was agreed at Rs.6,00,000/- for the said farm house. The said project was known as “COSMOS”.

2. Thereafter, several letters of request were sent to the OPs to hand over the possession of the farm house but these efforts made by the complainants did not ring the bell. Ultimately, the complaint was filed before the State Commission on 01.12.2001, wherein the following prayers were made:-

“(a) that the opposite parties be jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) paid by the complainants;

(b) that on the aforesaid amount of Rs.5 lakhs, the opposite parties be jointly and severally directed to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the dates of payment till the date of refund/realization;

(c) that the opposite parties be jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakhs or such other amount as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper, for the harassment caused to the complainants;

(d) that the opposite parties be jointly and severally directed to pay costs of this litigation; and

(e) for such further and other reliefs and/or directions as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.

Dated at Mumbai, this 15th day of June 2001.”

3. It is note-worthy that in their written version filed by OPs- 1 & 3, they promised that they would hand over the possession within 9 months. It is also note-worthy that the OPs did not agree to refund the amount instantaneously but insisted that farm house would be given within a period of 9 months. They explained that OPs are ready and willing to provide the constructed plot to the complainant as per terms of the allotment letter, hence the question of refunding money together with interest and compensation, as alleged, demanded by the complainant in the instant complaint, did not arise.

4. The complainants moved another application dated 13.06.2003 wherein they stated that even after the lapse of 9 months i.e., till July 1992, the respondents had failed to hand over the possession and the complainant signified their interest in possession of the said farm house. The OPs further averred that they had submitted a plan to the Municipal Corporation but the same was rejected by the Corporation on technical grounds. It was contended that the complainants were aware of that. The OPs denied having received Rs.50,000/- in cash.

5. Thereafter, the amendment application was moved on 11.10.2005 seeking relief of the possession as well. It may be mentioned here that vide order dated 24.02.2006, the State Commission was pleased to note that the complainants had filed an application for amendment of complaint with the relief in regard to delivery of possession of plot. Before the amendment could be allowed by the State Commission, the land in question was sold in favour of Mr. Suraj P. Parmar, who was subsequently, arrayed as OP-6 in this case.

6. The State Commission heard the parties and passed the following order on 16.01.2010:-

“1. Complaint is partly allowed.

2. O.P.Nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally, do pay Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of their respective payments till their realization.

3.